Modern Warfare...

[The Statutory Ape]

It seems to me that modern warfare has made itself politically obsolete.  There have been numerous wars throughout history.  Some were 'victorious' and others were 'defeats' (from the perspective of the agressors).  Since the advent of 'modern warfare' though it seems that 'victories' are few if even existent.

What I mean by 'modern warfare' is this new notion of attacking a country to 'liberate' it.  The purpose of war had always been for the purpose of taking a country over.  When a military went to another country to make war they didn't worry much about civilians getting in the way or taking prisoners, everyone was the enemy.

After the wholesale slaughter of WWII the enemy in any war has never been clearly defined since.  Suddenly the enemy was not the people of any country but their government, especially communist ones, and anyone that supported that government, which is a pretty hazy area of grey.

Korea was never 'won'.  Nor Vietnam.  Aiding homegrown rebellion has been the only form of 'modern warfare' that has seemed to have much luck and even that bites you in the ass on occasion.  It definitely doesn't do much for political appearances and in this day and age I think we can agree that even such victories are defeats when it comes to international relations.

Currently the US and some of her allies are suffering from the political defeat of it's 'victory' in Iraq, and even the military 'victory' is just a matter of perspective.  If Isreal were to have found it's military 'victory' in Lebanon it surely would have seen major political fallout.

It seems that warfare just isn't an option anymore unless under dire circumstances.  Whether you 'win' or not you still lose now that the point of war isn't to take over a country and make it yours.

[The Smoking Man]

Sorry ... Vietnam was never 'won'?

Only if you read American texts.

Vietnam was indeed WON... by the north when the USA turned tail and ran.

Once won, the country turned itself around and embraced the same principals of government as the Chinese and now stand second only to China in Asia for market growth.

And, they have a thriving tourist industry accepting people from all nations ... including the USA ... to view their fine, recovered country.

As far as 'warfare' ... yes, warfare is basically illegal as defined by the UN charter for all nations who are signatory to it.

Indeed, all people who signed it forsook the ability to invade anothr country for the purpose of taking it over on penalty of reprisal from all other signatory nations.

And so ... 'liberating' a country or 'pre-emptive strike to search for WMD' and maybe even 'to prevend them developing nuclear devices' are becoming the accepted reason for invasion.

[The Statutory Ape]

Sorry ... Vietnam was never 'won'?

I meant by the United States.  Sorry.


My point was not about the legality.  'Legality', while theoretically is a solid base to work from, in practice tends to wind up kinda hazy as people look for loopholes or just refuse to follow or uphold the law in general.

My point is about the logistics of 'winning' a war if you care about, or make a pretense of caring about, the civilians in the country you are invading.  Between guerrillas and the reaction of other countries I could hardly say that such war could be successful.

Afghanistan wasn't successful because the US removed the only people capable of keeping the place relatively stable from power.  The US didn't even have to worry that much about world view of the matter at that point either.  But still the place is now chaos except for what ever small pockets where the US has any hope of maintaining some order.

Iraq... I don't think I need to go into that one.  Aside from guerrillas the US now has the biggest PR problem on it's hands that it ever has.  NO ONE likes America at the moment.... except maybe for Isreal.

[The Smoking Man]

I see your point however this too is limited to the powers of the G8 nations.

In an objective analysis of Gulf War 1 for example, Saddam WAS actually justified in invading Kuwait.

The Kuwaities were actually drilling sideways into Iraqi oil fields.

When the Brits bailed, they left a 'province' really that had no real 'defined border' that was  really less than a line drawn in the sand.

And as far as a democracy in the middle east is concerned, you'll note that Bush and his minions never mention it when talking about the subject.

That's because the whole concept of 'democracy in Kuwait' was debunked about 10 minutes after it was mentioned.

To vote in that 'democracy' your family had to have been resident in Kuwait since 1929 and be a member of a specific family... In other words, you had to be related to the 'sultan' who is chosen from his family members.

So yeah ... back to what I was talking about ... Saddam had warned Kuwait several times to stop poaching the oil on penalty of invasion.

The rest ... as they say ... is history... Spun by the G8 to facilitate bombing him back to Bhagdad.

Now, you write that on an American forum and you will get accused 90 ways from sunday that you are a Saddam Sympathizer and that you like watching people being tortured and you eat babies fuck goats and any number of other nasty things because of the wonderful spin campaign that has Americans hyped up to fight terroists.

Truth is, he was LEGALLY justified to go in. They were stealing Iraqi resources.

Proof ... Kuwait is an oil exporting nation. One problem ... there is no oil under Kuwait.

[Smurf]

Warfare is changing, but its not becoming obsolete.  Historically war was usually about invading another state's territory and brining it under your state's direct administration.  Now-a-days theres all sorts of complications with that method.  Not the least of which being this new phenomena of 'human rights'.  So we try to gain all the benefits of that territory in other ways, and sometimes war is a useful tool to do that.  For example, in Vietnam the real points was to prevent it from developing an economy that's independant from the USA (and/or controlled by the USSR).  This objective was largely successful, the countries of vietnam, Laos and Cambodia were completely destroyed, dissuading the rest of Southeast Asia from trying it themselves, which is why China is seen as such a threat to the States now, because it's finally starting to gain more influence in SE Asia than the US.

Something like that anyway

[sophia]

You raise a very interesting discussion topic, TSA - I'm tempted to do a whole heap of research on it, but I shouldn't because I have to do some work tonight. So I'll just respond to some of what's been said 'off the top of my head' instead...

I agree that wars are politically obsolete in that, as you say, rather than advantaging the aggressor they result in chaos and instability, a lot of bad press (though not from mainstream media) and a hatred of the aggressor.

There is a lot of antagonism to the US nowadays, it seems - and a lot of it is misguided in that it does not discriminate between the American people and the US government. True, one could argue that 'the people' are guilty because they voted in the government... on the other hand, there seems to be a lot of evidence that they didn't and  that the electoral process was corrupted. One thing the American people could, perhaps, be blamed for is not having the guts to stand up for their own rights - but even that is a sweeping generalisation and is false as there are many people and groups of people who are doing whatever they can to do just that: to protect their civil liberties as defined by the Bill of Rights. I think it's a matter of time - they need to get more organised, that's all.

I think the internet as a source of information which is still largely uncontrollable (the powers that be are working on that one, though) also has a role to play here - no longer is the mainstream media the only source of 'information'; at least the people who have the resources to go online get to read news from a variety of sources - including personal accounts from the war zones which are candid and enable the reader to empathise with the human suffering and devastation that these conflicts cause. Comparing how news is reported in the mainstream media to the more alternative reports clearly shows the bias in mainstream media - and people are not fools; they can judge these things... if they want to; those who are willfully blind are so for a reason, and therefore they can't be convinced to see the obvious.

Political leaders don't see it this way. I think they are under the illusion that they can do exactly as they please and no-one will ever have the power to stop them... well, this seems to be exactly what the US administration thinks. Their aim is to set up puppet governments who will allow them to drain the country concerned of valuable resources (in return for some breadcrumbs to the puppet ruling elite) - this is a form of economic imperialism. The politicians, acting in the interests of big capital, have no option but to try their luck in this way: capitalism is a greedy, ruthless system - profits must grow at any and all costs, and it doesn't matter who thinks what about the methods used. However, this is a miscalculation - as events in the ME demonstrate, people will not quietly submit when  their country is invaded.

Hmm, not as sophisticated an argument as I would like to make... but it'll have to do:-)

[The Statutory Ape]

Warfare is changing, but its not becoming obsolete.  Historically war was usually about invading another state's territory and brining it under your state's direct administration.  Now-a-days theres all sorts of complications with that method.  Not the least of which being this new phenomena of 'human rights'.  So we try to gain all the benefits of that territory in other ways, and sometimes war is a useful tool to do that.  For example, in Vietnam the real points was to prevent it from developing an economy that's independant from the USA (and/or controlled by the USSR).  This objective was largely successful, the countries of vietnam, Laos and Cambodia were completely destroyed, dissuading the rest of Southeast Asia from trying it themselves, which is why China is seen as such a threat to the States now, because it's finally starting to gain more influence in SE Asia than the US.

Something like that anyway

Didn't Vietnam get plenty of support from both Russia and China though?  Before, during, and after?  I'll probably have to do some more reading on that.

The question though would be that even though the primary objective, dissuading control from communist governments, may have been attained was it worth the loss in other sectors?  The loss of government control of the populace.  The loss of an American mentality that we don't question the government because they know what's best.  Citizens finding out about the dirty secrets.  The only way I can imagine someone justifying it in their minds is if they really believe that the commies are evil and needed to be fought against win or lose.

I don't think the aims of war are too terribly different, they just go about getting what they want in a different way than they used to.  The big difference I see is the price to be paid for doing it and the considerations that are necessary.  And those considerations seem to negate the plausability and profitability of the endevour.  Unless of course you just don't care but that in and of itself is dangerous.

Hmm, not as sophisticated an argument as I would like to make... but it'll have to do:-)

That's ok.  It's not PF, and I was more looking for opinions than proofs.

[Polly]

  Sorry, I have to sound like a fortune-cookie Chinese again  .  TSA, that is why we have always always looked at warfare as the last resort.  The best way to get what you want from another country is to do so by overcoming their will to resist, Sunzi said so in his book on warfare.  You can do it by trade, by diplomacy, by exchange, by negotiation.  But as all these take more time, wit, patience and discipline than the arrogant, get-it-fixed and armament-selling Americans would like to put up, it is not surprising that they go for shock and awe.